Mark as Spam - Which email client(s) pass this information to which email service providers?

[Markverhyden]

I just want to mention that Outlook does have anti-spam plugins. Apple users can use SpamSieve. I just did a quick search on "free spam filter" and saw a site called mailwasher.net. Obviously I have no idea how well it works.

I've had Earthlink for almost 30 years. I think maybe 10 years ago or so they added spam filtering capabilities. But like anything else this needs to be done via the web interface logged into the account, picture below. I'd expect most major consumer email providers to have the same or similar thing. On my email I have no spam filtering enabled. What I do have is a mess of rules sending legit emails to their respective folders. Why this approach? Early on I had problem with emails getting blocked/dropped as spam even though there is no problem, they are in fact legit addresses I regularly correspond with.

Now, the "targeted" approach. Such as a email from a listserv. I've dealt with both ends of the equation. The senders as well as receivers. There is no silver bullet.

 

[frase]

Insert Temp then - Al Bundy fact..

 

[callthatgirl]

Outlook's mark as spam does nothing but train the local Outlook. If Outlook is attached to Exchange it will train that Exchange instance. None of this intelligence is used at the service provider level as far as I know.

Yeah, and very half baked at best.

 

[NJW]

I am becoming more and more frustrated in trying to find some single (or even a couple) resource that will indicate on an email client basis which, when you use their "mark as spam/junk" function, send that information to the email service provider AND which email service providers actually accept that information for tweaking their spam filters.

To address the original point, you should probably look at the email provider end, rather than the email client end.

I use Fastmail for my primary email and there is a specific setting to mark a folder for 'learn new messages as spam', thus the training can be done entirely through the email client, either by filtering to such a folder or by manually moving messages there.

 

[britechguy]

To address the original point, you should probably look at the email provider end, rather than the email client end.

Not that I don't agree with you, I do, but I have to say that this is much, much more easily said than done. It's almost as though most email service providers are making it as difficult as possible for end users (and particularly those who favor email clients) to access server side filtering whether for spam or other purposes.

You'd also think, since email clients are far from dead and both filtering and blocking are built in to virtually all of them, that there would be an interest in having that information on the provider side when someone takes those sorts of actions in an email client.

But, after all that, for email service providers that provide very easy access to their server-side filtering, and Google springs immediately to mind and I imagine Microsoft would, too, though I haven't dealt with it, I try to encourage all of my clients to get used to the idea that filtering should NOT be done in their chosen email clients, but on the server side. It also makes a lot more sense to do it there since all platforms and clients accessing the email store will always be looking at precisely the same thing since all filtering occurs before they even get access to it. I have had clients doing extensive filtering using Outlook and IMAP folders, but if their phone started looking at email prior to Outlook having had a sync cycle for the same messages where those messages would be was very different depending on which accessed them and when. Also, if you go on vacation and shut down the machine on which you have Outlook running and doing "post filtering" that moves messages to specific folders upon receipt by Outlook, none of that occurs "for the duration" of that machine being shutdown. For anyone accessing email from multiple devices that's not good.

 

[NJW]

... but I have to say that this is much, much more easily said than done.

Only if you don't want to pay money for a proper email service.

 

[britechguy]

Only if you don't want to pay money for a proper email service.

Well, if you're blessed with a client base that only uses what you consider "proper email services" then that's wonderful for you!

Those of us who work with residential clients and disabled clients don't have that luxury, and never will.

That kind of response is so unhelpful and does not address the present state of affairs where many users simply can't work with the server side of their email service providers.

 

[frase]

Well, if you're blessed with a client base that only uses what you consider "proper email services" then that's wonderful for you!

Those of us who work with residential clients and disabled clients don't have that luxury, and never will.

That kind of response is so unhelpful and does not address the present state of affairs where many users simply can't work with the server side of their email service providers.

Security is a cost - unhelpful I would disagree, though you will reply in a TLDR comment as such.

 

[britechguy]

TLDR

Which is your problem, frequently.

 

[frase]

Confrontation isn't your strong point is it, Dogmatic man - you think you own the arena!
Fade away like your profile

 

[NJW]

Those of us who work with residential clients and disabled clients don't have that luxury, and never will.

Like so many things, you pays your money and you takes your choice. When one takes a 'free' service, one accepts it for what it is and adjusts ones expectations accordingly.

That kind of response is so unhelpful and does not address the present state of affairs where many users simply can't work with the server side of their email service providers.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes you have to change provider to get the desired features. Sometimes that alternative provider has a different business model and may charge. 'Many users' need to accept that what they want isn't free. It's hardly a king's ransom for a paid email account, but if the cost is unacceptable, take what Google and Outlook give you.

 

[britechguy]

Google email and Outlook.com aren't the problems, contrary to idle speculation here. Both give the end user easy access to server side functionality.

It's those grand paid services, mostly linked to telecomm and cable companies, that often don't. Eventually, more and more will give the same level of interface that Google and Outlook already do. But the idea that "because it's paid, it's better" is patently false in many cases.

One should not have to "adjust one's expectations" that you can't set up filtering that's in place for all of your email devices where it should be set up just because it's not being given now. One should complain about it and, if it's really something one can't live without, change providers. But the idea that those in the IT business are acting as apologists for providers blocking server-side access is, to put it mildly, appalling.

 

[NJW]

This comment intentionally left blank due to speechlessness.